Halloween 3

First and Formost I would like to say "What the ****?"I saw this movie years ago but it's on TV now so I just have to ask,what the hell is this movie doing in the Halloween series of sequels?It has nothing to do with Mike Meyers.Backfire must know.This sequel is gay as **** and I need to know why it's in there.

Dude I agree wholeheartedly 100%

Yes, it's very strange!

i was just about to make a thread about Halloween 3. And i have to say it's a good movie. Very strange. Eventhough it didn't include myers. i give it a solid 8 out of 10.

Yeah i watched that earlier then watched They Live. Halloween 3 is totally out of left field. I been singing that stupid song all night too!

yea what a stupid stupid movie..what was the point of it again? eh who knows

Maybe I can enlighten you all with my ridiculously random horror movie knowledge. For some reason I know this:

The original Halloween was supposed to be it's own movie. A sequel was never intended. Each Halloween that followed was supposed to be it's own story. Fans were pissed that the next Halloween wasn't going to include Michael Myers and that cop or doctor guy, whatever he was. So they made a sequel instead of a series piece based on Oct. 31st.

So then, since they originally intended to make a bunch of Halloween movies non-related to each other, and because of popular demand, they decided to make a part three based on characters from the first two. .. ... . which is ridiculous because Michael Myers and that cop/doctor guy obviously blow to smitherines at the end of part two. And that my accomplices in crime, is why Halloween 3 was born. They felt it would be too ridiculous to start a whole new series so they kept the old one going by any means necessary.

One more day till halloween...halloween...halloween...

I thought this was pretty bad, i mean what does this have 2 do with Mike they should've just released it as a non halloween movie why didn't they. What did u guys think?

scroll down the horror threads and you should find one entitled Halloween 3. Go there to chat about this, people probably don't want to repeat their answers.

i thought it wasn't bad. but it was interesting. once again i give it a solid 6 out of 10. very strange movie.

Merged teh two halloween 3 threads.

I still don't understand why Halloween 3 is in the Halloween series.If it was meant to be a seperate movie from the Halloween sequels it wouldn't be Halloween 3.The Second Halloween was just a later that night of the first so what the **** is up with the damn masks and no mike myers?And what doctor/cop guy?The guy in the Halloween's with Mike Myers is a doctor.The ******* in the Season of the Witch Halloween is also a doctor.so who the hell is the cop/doctor guy?

Because the story had too do with the holiday halloween, and it was produced by john carpentor. So they could use the famouse halloween title to get recognition.

That's stupid.

not stupid at all............you must realize that at the time it was made......there weren't 7 Halloween movies starring Michael Meyers. There was Halloween which ended in a cliff hanger scenerio. Halloween 2 picks up right where part 1 left off......it finished the cliffhanger and killed 2 of the 3 main characters at the end to finish the story. The plan was to not focus Halloween around any one subject/story. It was to be like the Tales from the Crypt franchise in which each movie is about a different story. They released Seaon of the Witch under the Halloween name for the same reason "Demon Knight" and "Bordello of Blood" are both under the Tales from the Crypt name, as a franchise created around different stories. It failed miserably.....so they decided to go back to what worked, Michael Meyers. If the movie had done well, you would have never seen Michael Meyers again. He would have remained dead in the explosion at the end of part 2 while the Halloween franchise would have continued on with different stories about different people in different situations.

Sure, it's easy to look back after 8 movies have been made and say "that was stupid"..............it wasn't stupid at the time. In fact, it was actually a smart move to attempt. Having new stories for every movie is a great way to keep a franchise fresh as having the same character in the film over and over causes them to become stale and boring. "Yeah.....he stalks them and kills them with a butcher knife....okay already...we've watched this seven times before"

I like all the halloween movies but some of em' r boring.

Whatever it's intention, it is an absolute joke of a film, probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I stand by my original statement.That's stupid.

Ok is this the most contriversial film in the Halloween series or what. I don't think the movie was bad. It was good in my view but shouldn't have been a Halloween movie. I ddn't like how they killed the kid in the test room. Most slasher/horror films don't dare to kill a kid. I liked the ending, but does that mean that the world ends or does he stop? I guess they had to leave us hanging with that... well the end of the world probably came, but I don't want to think that way. I think the production value was low though. It was pretty confusing though. Although I didn't see the first half hour so that could part of the reason for my confusion. Why did they have Atkins cheat on his wife? What about the stonehedge? Why is it called Season of the Witches? Why does the villain just vanish when the laser hits him but it just burns the other guy to death. Why do the robot's spit up liquid that looks like yurine? whatever happens to the girl that Atkins was with? Why doesn't the robot version of the girl kill Atkins when Atkins kills the villain. Why do they turn off the 1st and 2nd stations but not the third? What was all the business with the stonehenge having mystical powers? How did a small time company like Silver Shamrock get total control of a town and get the money to make robots? Oh and one more thing since I didn't see the first half hour... do the commercials hypnotize/brainwash the kids to buy the masks?